Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Sell, Sell, Sell: A Response to the Responses

After watching a week of reactions to my previous post on marketing in climbing, a post which received a record number of comments and a decent number of views, I then saw a reaction to the post from Jeff Jackson over at Rock and Ice. Now believe it or not, I do not have it in for R&I, even though an editor over there seems to have it in for me ( "sanctimonious conquistador" is the latest epithet). So be it.

However, Jeff was not the only editor to get back to me, though he chose to do so in public. The others did so in private communications, communications which indicated that the issue I raised was legitimate. Looking over the majority of comments both at my blog and over at the Climbing Narc, I found the same overall view, that there is certainly room for more real diversity of opinion. As an aside I find it extraordinary that a writer such as myself receives the attention I do from the "pros". Despite Jeff Jackson's obligatory disclaimer that "Beal might read Rock and Ice as rarely as I read his blog" I cannot think of too many other outside writers, especially of blogs, who have garnered the attention from Rock and Ice (or other outlets) that I have. So somebody is reading me over there, even it might only be a lowly intern who has to deliver the executive summary to the head honcho. I have no idea. I may not get the nod from Outside but boy I do get the reactions from the editors. (For the record I am a subscriber to R&I and have a sizable pile of recent back issues of all kinds of media to review.)

So what did I mean by writing what I did? Well it wasn't for the fame or money. Derisive comments on the Interwebs hardly count as fame and as for money, well there isn't any of that. No I wrote because I care about the sport of climbing and what I believe it stands for or at least could stand for. So what does that mean?

Jackson mentioned, after slowly getting around to aspects on which we seemed to agree, that "Climbing as counter-culture is healthy and growing." I would like to believe that this is the case but I want to argue for a stronger version of "counter-culture" than I think most climbers are willing to accept. That is to say that faux-libertarianism or resistance against "The Man" in the form of road-trips and dressing funny is not enough anymore.It has nothing to do with trad or sport, or chopping bolts or not. It has to do with how we lead our lives, not how we lead routes.

As I have mentioned before, I am struck by the apologists for capitalism who fail to see the extraordinary degree to which the sport of climbing depends on a fundamentally communitarian notion of society and the rich resources of a natural and social commons. For the most part, outside of a gym, and I would argue that even private gyms form part of the climbing commons, we as climbers depend on the largesse of nature and the generosity of the community, not just the community of climbers, but a larger community that tolerates or encourages risk-taking, encounters with nature, the value of leisure and so on. It is time for a deeper recognition of this connectedness. Climbing is getting too big to maintain the fiction of the marginal outcast, the mythology of the 50s, 60s, and 70s. And even more importantly the outside pressures of social change, economic and political oppression and dislocation, and environmental degradation are unavoidable, affecting the habitats of climbing in ways that climbers have for the most part chosen to ignore.

So what are some specific issues I would like to see seriously discussed in the climbing press or online, issues that in my view actually serve to provoke real discussion. They are not necessarily rehashes of the Cerro Torre controversy, or accounts of epic "expeditions" or profiles of "controversial" figures in the sport. What they are instead are fundamental critiques of the ways in which climbing affects the world. In my view any one of these would constitute a fairly substantial departure from the norm.

1. I would argue that as climbing seeks to "explore" new areas of the earth, for example, that the ethics of exploration be given a serious look and the question be seriously asked whether the resultant impacts on the local social and natural environment are worth the ephemeral and at this point mostly imaginary rewards of discovery. This obsolete ideology has for too long been at the heart of the sport, primarily because of its utility as marker of status and by implication, marketing. Let's imagine climbing without it.

2. I would love to see an exploration of what opportunities the actual makers of climbing gear and other forms of leisure equipment have to actually experience climbing, hiking, skiing etc. and what they think of their work. Constant depictions of and narratives about what Veblen describes as "conspicuous leisure" mask the role of human labor in supporting the climbing enterprise.

3. I would like to see a better exploration of how communities react to the intrusion of climbers into local ecosystems and economies and the degree to which natural spaces are "colonized" by outside visitors such as climbers. Climbing is not a neutral presence in either nature or society and there is no point in pretending otherwise.

4. I would like to see a fuller account of the ways in which the economics and editorial directions of publishing are or are not affected by advertisers and other industry influences. I think more transparency on this point is something many climbers have expressed concern.

5. I would like to see some discussion of the virtual absence of minority populations in the sport of climbing and what that implies for the sport in the present and going into the future.

6. I would like a deeper discussion of the ethics of climbing in politically repressive countries and regions of the world and on a related note a consideration the ethics of outsourcing climbing manufacturing to these kinds of places.

Like all climbers, I want to believe in the state that Jackson so eloquently describes at the end of his column. He writes "High above the ground in challenging terrain the various sheaths drop
away—conditioning, culture, all the trappings and masks—and you are
stripped naked as a newborn. This will always be the signal experience
of ascent, and it is inviolable." But the truth is a lot more complicated than the rhetoric. The myth of the freedom and purity of climbing takes a lot of machinery, real and ideological, to sustain itself and I would suggest this experience is much less inviolable than we would like to believe. At any rate a more serious conversation of that possibility is in order, in my view.

12 comments:

First off before I get accused for self promotion, if this is going to be a relevant debate we need to buy in to the concept that voicing once opinion is not the same as self promotion, sorry for the political disclaimer…

Have to hand it to you guys; it is both interesting and relevant topics and thoughts in the first post and the following debate. One problem when addressing some of the issues Peter mention and when digging deeper in to some of the topics Peter mentions is the constant flow of dismissals from folks arguing that a debate is only important to a small number of elitists... Refusing to see the big picture and impact climbing has on a number of eco systems: political, social and economical.

JJ is offering a few good points as well. Are you guys really that far from each other? R&I are usually keen to vent opinions from Joe the Climber and not only from super stars.

I think the real issue is the wider circles of outdoor and adventure tourists not that bothered with sustainability issues or the impact there activities in the mountains has on the different eco systems mentioned above.

"As I have mentioned before, I am struck by the apologists for capitalism who fail to see the extraordinary degree to which the sport of climbing depends on a fundamentally communitarian notion of society and the rich resources of a natural and social commons."

Word. And indeed I don't think it's always just the apologists for capitalism who miss that; the romanticization of the wilderness and mountains can divorce us all from social and political context in which we act/climb.

But, anyways, seeing climbing as within the social and natural commons sounds like a manifesto that I'd sign up to. Keep at it!

"Climbing as counter-culture is healthy and growing." I would like to believe that this is the case but I want to argue for a stronger version of "counter-culture" than I think most climbers are willing to accept."

This is a paradox. This isn't really possible. The only place that climbing is growing as a counter culture is among the people that aren't featured in magazines and aren't paid to do it.

These evil, dastardly companies with their relentless barrages of greed-based marketing on our oh-so-impressionable materialistic minds, like it or not, are the ones that pay the bills. They're the ones that pay for the epics in exotic places, and they're the ones that make distinguish "pro" climbers from those who are not. Not every climber that can send in the .14s is a pro. Just the ones that are sponsored and get paid- which is likely a large percentage. If that is truly what defines professional climbing, then how, pray tell, do you transition climbing into a counter-culture, when the climbing youth are aspiring to the exact opposite?

You want counter culture? Anti consumerism? Look to the people that truly don't give a shit. Look to the people that detest reality shows and shiny cars and the latest gadgets and fashions. Look to the people that have saved up over years to be able to afford the bare minimum of gear that will save their lives while climbing. Look to the people that have climbing schedules dictated by two jobs, yet they still manage to do it and get out and climb hard. Look to the people that don't care who sent or developed the latest "proj" in God knows what former communist bloc country- because they don't have time, and because they don't care. These people don't have $300 down jackets, new 80m dry treated ropes for each new endeavor, $1000 tents, or any of that other shit. They have the as much as it takes to get the job done, and it is about the experience and the movement and the setting. Nothing else. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about dirtbags either. I'm talking about people hooked on it, with a genuine love for it, and don't give a shit about anything else recreationally.

If you're not relying on these people to carry on the true ethos of climbing and to abandon the traits that drag climbing into the cess pool that is popular culture and professional sports in America, then you're looking in the wrong direction. If you're looking to the media, the magazines, the "pros" or anywhere else to carry on the legacy and tradition of American climbing that blossomed in the late '50s, then you're not going to find it. You can't fight the machine if you're paid by the machine.

Who do you think will pay for these studies on how impact from western climbers in these third world nations affects the local population? TNF? Patagonia? All of the big name outdoor powerhouses? A big collection of companies that will research the ways in which the very products they produce and the athletes that wear said products will negatively affect these places? And then the magazines with the ads for these products and who promote these companies will applaud and say "look, see? They do care!" It's almost laughable what you're suggesting. If you get paid by a manufacturer for anything at all, you are a hypocrite, and have already lost your right to outrage before you have even begun. You sir, are no exception. Quite frankly to suggest otherwise is pretty ridiculous.

Many climbers overestimate the size and economic impact of our sport. That's not to say that climbing doesn't have economic impacts and socio/economic implications! But it's worth noting that it's still very much a niche in the broader recreation economy. The Outdoor Industry Association issue free reports that make this pretty clear:

Note that the category of indoor/bouldering/sport climbing is much smaller than the category of mountaineering/alpine. Yet many of the climbers I know seem to think that indoor climbers far outnumber outdoor climbers (and some seem to think that this will soon lead to the end of climbing as we know it.)

Anyway, I hope adding a few lies, damn lies and statistics to the conversation adds some perspective. Climbing is hardly a mega industry, and participation is growing only modestly.

Define minority however you like but the vast majority of the climbing population is white, middle to upper middle class and male, and this persists across national borders in the northern hemisphere. Obviously elsewhere this would be different, which is another interesting story in its own right.

Great discourse. After digesting all of the fancy words of your articles and the R&I TNB, Jeff Jackson (one righteous dude) continues to prove he is the voice of reason in the climbing community!

"As climbers we know that there is a truer world beyond money, words and images. It is accessible every time we climb. High above the ground in challenging terrain the various sheaths drop away—conditioning, culture, all the trappings and masks—and you are stripped naked as a newborn. This will always be the signal experience of ascent, and it is inviolable." - JJ

Define minority however you like but the vast majority of the climbing population is white, middle to upper middle class and male, and this persists across national borders in the northern hemisphere.

It's about as relevant a discussion as the inverse ratio of white people to black people in the NBA. Culture. Environment. How come nobody cries about that? Because it doesn't matter. Because it's largely a result of culture and environment, not about some sinister ulterior clandestine motive. And thanks for not posting that very valid comment that would have put you in a position to answer some tricky questions. Do you wake up in the morning and look for things to whine about? "A response to the responses". Right. The ones you choose to post, that you can offer carefully thought out rebuttals to.

awhile ago climbing mag had an article about making climbing greener or more environment friendly, think their was 4 pros interviewed and it was pretty lame overall but good idea,just no real deep issues, steve house was talking about the use of helicopters and joking some should just take them to the summit, yet he and colin haley took a helicopter to the base of the emperor face on robson skipping the 20 mile hike that most climbers take, than haley writes a spread for alpinist about it, i wasnt the only amatuer that thought it was bad style, some have tried yet got stormed out by the approach! seems like the pros are looking for quick hits and fame and money deals, free gear, takes months for some of us to get ice screws just sets a bad example, think the verm was talking about crashpads and bouldering erosion impacts, sonnie talkng about trad climbing as green which was cool, but nothing really about the global impacts and jet set lifestyles of the pros, the mountains of media and paper waste , how many different jackets do the pros need for photos, sam and emilys everest climb seems like a sponsor fueled guided trip for their resume or a book, why not climb a lesser known peak or something new for first time for climbers of their strength, of course that will be next and we will get it on alpinist news wire any minute now! they say they will do some research up there but what, see if everest has gotten any taller and whom cares, maybe conrad will find another body and profit from a story about some unknown alpinists attempt in 1890,just think we should give it a rest,nevergetstorest as the amatuers say, ice tower in bozemen for olympics, why do we need that, turn more people into ice swinging monkey competitors for hundreds of people to watch on t.v and leave trash about bozemen, evolution of the ice man,we are shutting down the outdoors and bolting the out door shut and its becoming fueled by bigger corporations, next nike will be selling ropes at wal mart, lamas next book about himself, steve house the great white american hope for alpinism, one pro said ice climbing is easy after his first year on it, try it with leashes and 30 below temps if its to easy or dont clip the bolts on a mixed line! damn good thing we cant bolt ice!! even tho twight was a pro kinda miss the days of his mt hunter type trips,but f em their all sponsored anyway! most amatuers dream of going to the himalaya and many strong capable climbers will never make it mainly due to money! yet their dreams just as big and no fuel or shit waste was left in the mountains, most amatuers lose interest in the pros climbing feats and next book about suffering as a pro, there was a arcticle in the mags about being a pro climber is tougher than you think, that sharma lived out of a car in eurpoe and conrad or his friend had to shave with a bar soap vs shaving cream, gives us a break i had a friend who shaves with ivory soap to save some cash and never complains! yikes exuse the rant these article spark interest, dont get me wrong i like flipping through the mags for quick hits myself and cool pics and what the pros are crushing but getting older now and would like deeper stories or just mountain art and poems as alpinist has done, the cover art for issue 36 was great because it could be anyone not just the same faces! most folks I climb with are minorities but i dont call them that i prefer native americans and as far as i know they have been climbing a long time! what happened to the days when folks just went out to climb peaks and returned to the tipi and fire for briefly shared stories, now we bring camera on all body parts and rate and name each move, ah man im going skiing!!

This debate, while at times entertaining, reminds me of the day I became disillusioned with the study of philosophy. I was looking something up in the Philosopher’s Index and wondered how many people had written about Aristotle in the past year. I found hundreds of references and pondered the time and effort that went into all those papers while history marched onward, unmoved. I decided I wanted to spend my time acting upon the corporeal world, hopefully for the good, and not through writing papers or manifestos. My philosophical training has served me well, but I try to keep it tucked in most of the time. On a similar vein, I generally don’t break out my trombone at campfires. Sure it would elicit a response, but out of context, it’s obnoxious.